Not much to say here, I've come to learn what Fox "news" is all about. And it's not news...

To declare that a personal, inner experience gives certainty about the workings of the universe is to assign far too much value to one’s subjective sense of conviction.
I’m not that arrogant.
The brain, marvelous instrument though it is, isn’t infallible. It can misfire, seize or hallucinate, and it can do so in a way that’s utterly indistinguishable from reality to the person experiencing it.

But I'm willing to bet that most of the sheeple who post on these forums will either ignore it or defend it as being "necessary" for some unknown reason.

The history of the women's rights and LBGT rights movements will likely be more present in today's classrooms, given how culturally relevant they are. I don't see this as shocking at all, especially in a state like California that has played a relatively key role. Harvey Milk is from there, etc.

---------- Post added 2013-01-12 at 11:50 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Twotonsteak

When dealing in area's where homosexuals had a strong influence, such as the Bay area, I could see it being included in a "local history" type course. Mandating that the entire state involve courses beyond local history is, well, silly. Over-all someones sexuality shouldn't matter.

I mean most of our Founding Fathers were womanizing, cheating, alcoholics. Many of them fathered children out of wedlock. Some were, at one point or another, poor. And at least a couple owned slaves. None of which is generally taught in public school.

I think you're fundamentally missing the point. The fact that you say "sexuality shouldn't matter" is because society is starting to progress to that point where they believe exactly that--that it's irrelevant. Society didn't always used to be that way, and there are many parts of society which still aren't. In Harvey Milk's time, that wasn't the most common view. It was relevant and seen as an impediment to serving the public.

And regardless of how horrible the education is, you can't speak out against all new additions to curriculum under the guise that other stuff is broken. Not updating it is only going to make it worse.

Thread is misleading. They don't seem to be complaining about math, but are complaining about them using math to talk about someone distributing wealth. Still it's silly, but misleading titles are equally as stupid.

Thread is misleading. They don't seem to be complaining about math, but are complaining about them using math to talk about someone distributing wealth. Still it's silly, but misleading titles are equally as stupid.

Indeed.

Should we start complaining about a conservative conspiracy and point to the math examples that involve their agendas? /tinfoil hat

To declare that a personal, inner experience gives certainty about the workings of the universe is to assign far too much value to one’s subjective sense of conviction.
I’m not that arrogant.
The brain, marvelous instrument though it is, isn’t infallible. It can misfire, seize or hallucinate, and it can do so in a way that’s utterly indistinguishable from reality to the person experiencing it.

Maybe it isn't schools having this "liberal bias." Maybe it's reality that has a liberal bias. . .

It's a well known fact that facts has a liberal bias. Not like these feelings thing that's totally neutral and objective.

---------- Post added 2013-01-12 at 04:35 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Every Pwny

Thread is misleading. They don't seem to be complaining about math, but are complaining about them using math to talk about someone distributing wealth. Still it's silly, but misleading titles are equally as stupid.

Fairly typical right-wing American hatred of teachers. They simply do not and cannot trust that teachers are trained to know how children learn and what kind of examples resonate and make more of an impact. It's been mentioned already that younger children absolutely require physical examples because the part of the brain that deals with abstract theory isn't fully developed; this is a wonderful way to teach mathematics.

In fact as far as I'm aware the UK is the only european nation that outright bans guns for civilians.

Shotguns I'll give you (provided you're allowed 12 and larger gauges... because I mean... come on...) but not .22s.

If it makes him feel any better, I have completely forgotten what the distributive property involves.

I honestly couldn't remember either.

Originally Posted by Masark

People in cars cause accidents. Accidents in cars cause people.

Sometimes life gives you lemons, other times life gives you boobies. Life is always better with more boobies.
Blizzard removed my subscription from WoD's features, it'll be added sometime later.
And thus I give you: MALE contraception!

There is no way this problem was just created by a text book writer and a publishing company thinking nothing of the potential political implications. No, it must have been made by a bunch of liberals sitting around a table in a dark room scheming "how can we slowly corrupt today's youth into being liberal through math problems".

There is no way this problem was just created by a text book writer and a publishing company thinking nothing of the potential political implications. No, it must have been made by a bunch of liberals sitting around a table in a dark room scheming "how can we slowly corrupt today's youth into being liberal through math problems".

It is rather difficult to say how distributing wealth ended as example of distributive property. It might be someone purposely putting political ideas into school or the teacher might just be honestly trying to come up with an example that kids can relate to.

However, I just don't think politics and religion should play any role in math. Imagine teacher saying any number multiplied to 0 becomes 0 is like god forgiving sins so no matter how many sins you have, god can make it go away like multiplying by 0. Or imagine a teacher saying the idea of infinite is like having as many guns as you want.

I think teachers need to be more careful when they come up with examples and consciously stay away from political/religious topics. I can see some exceptions if a political topic meshes extremely well with a difficult concept. But even that's up for debate. Though distributing wealth and distributive property just don't really mesh -_-...

their moving their table over their
they're moving they're table over they're
there moving there table over there

Maybe I'm just naive, but I've never noticed anything political about math.

As a conservative, it's really annoying to see myself and my ideals associated with idiots like this guy. He's a moron, not a conservative.

Probably the greatest weakness of the Republican party right now is that they've absorbed extremism and ignorance into their ranks. Even a small minority can be devastating; for example, the way a few congressman blathering on about "legitimate rape" and such things had an effect on Romney's reputation due to association. It really isn't enough to say "we aren't like them" anymore; the Republican party needs to clean up its ranks.

“A fool is not a person who does not know something. Rather, a fool is a person who is given information but who chooses to ignore what he is given based on how he wants things to be, rather than how things are."